I'm running arm 2.6.30 kernel and a 2.6.30 kernel on my desktop. I see this "[1257016.190000] nfsd: last server has exited, flushing export cache [1257018.250000] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). ." On both ends. The arm is running debian lenny (armel). The desktop is debian lenny (32bit i368). When this error i cannot continue to transfer files. Here is the config of the /etc/exports and what i try to use "/media/nfs_shares/rsync/ *(rw,no_subtree_check)" i mount on the desktop with [root@desktop ]# mount 192.168.1.12:/media/Y/W/ /media/mount_point/ -o soft and i try using rsync like this (from my desktop). rsync -av --progress /home/User_NAME/BACKUP/Y/W/X/ /media/mount_point/W/X and it just hangs. I then try to unmount it and i have problems doing so. so i need to force the umount "19051.391800] Performance counters on [319051.391804] input device check on [319051.391807] Actions configured [399843.223405] RPC: Registered udp transport module. [399843.223413] RPC: Registered tcp transport module. [399843.346956] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). [401465.708049] device eth1 left promiscuous mode [401689.794716] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). [402224.640535] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). [402356.791524] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). [402702.197491] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). " I am only using nfs2. I am not using nfs4 / nfs3. This issue is most troublesome as it breaks my use of nfs. 2009/5/12 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On May 11, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Frans Pop wrote: >> >> On Monday 11 May 2009, you wrote: >>> >>> On May 10, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Frans Pop wrote: >>>> >>>> After switching from 2.6.29.2 to 2.6.30-rc5 I get this new message >>>> during boot of my home server: >>>> svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). >>> >>> Is this the only instance of this message, or do you see it several >>> times? >> >> It's the only one. >> >>>> This looks to be the result of the following commit: >>>> commit 363f724cdd3d2ae554e261be995abdeb15f7bdd9 >>>> Author: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> SUNRPC: rpcb_register() should handle errors silently >>>> Move error reporting for RPC registration to rpcb_register's >>>> caller. >>>> >>>> Question is: do I really want to know this? I assume the "failure" >>>> happened with previous kernels too, but silently. >>> >>> The point of that commit was to report errors _less_ frequently. >> >> :-) >> >>> The server-side RPC code is attempting to be more automatic about >>> which address families are supported by kernel NFS services. This >>> message tells us that some particular case is not handled yet. I >>> suspect you weren't seeing this error in the past at all. >> >> Correct. Neither this exact error, nor anything remotely similar. > > No, I meant that whether or not you saw an error message, the underlying > condition probably was not occurring before 2.6.30. > >>> Can you report more about your server configuration? What >>> distribution is this? >> >> Debian stable (Lenny). >> nfs-common and nfs-kernel-server (1.1.2) >> >> I'm using nfs4. rpc.statd is not running; rpc.mountd and rpc.idmapd are. > > The NFS client and server appear to start lockd listeners for NFSv4. They > probably don't need to. But that's a separate issue. > >>> Does user space have portmapper or rpcbind? >> >> portmap (6.0) >> >>> Are you blacklisting ipv6.ko? >> >> No, the server has IPv6 enabled. >> I'm using NFS mainly from my laptop though, which does not have an IPv6 >> address for my home network. >> >>> What's the output of "rpcinfo" on your server after it has started NFSD? >> >> I guess you mean the -p option? >> >> $ rpcinfo -p >> program vers proto port >> 100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper >> 100000 2 udp 111 portmapper >> 100003 2 udp 2049 nfs >> 100003 3 udp 2049 nfs >> 100003 4 udp 2049 nfs >> 100021 1 udp 47955 nlockmgr >> 100021 3 udp 47955 nlockmgr >> 100021 4 udp 47955 nlockmgr >> 100021 1 tcp 41860 nlockmgr >> 100021 3 tcp 41860 nlockmgr >> 100021 4 tcp 41860 nlockmgr >> 100003 2 tcp 2049 nfs >> 100003 3 tcp 2049 nfs >> 100003 4 tcp 2049 nfs >> 100005 1 udp 40032 mountd >> 100005 1 tcp 40623 mountd >> 100005 2 udp 40032 mountd >> 100005 2 tcp 40623 mountd >> 100005 3 udp 40032 mountd >> 100005 3 tcp 40623 mountd >> 391002 2 tcp 792 sgi_fam > > In this case, it looks like the message can be treated as a notice. I think > in general we could safely make that a dprintk, but I'd like to wait a bit > more to see if we catch any bad behavior. > > -- > Chuck Lever > chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
